Comment EI-22185
Received or sent (printed as 4/21/2016)
Dear Mr. Navecky, My name is Sam Dunklau and I represent four Northern Illinois voters living in Paw Paw, IL, one of the many towns in Illinois that would be affected by the recently-proposed Great Lakes Basin Railroad. I would like to first thank you sincerely for your time and attention to the following concerns I wish to bring forward to you. I firmly believe, after due consideration and considerable research of this proposed railroad and its effects, that the GLB Line is without question a poor environmental and economic proposal which would damage the livelihoods of the citizens of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana irreparably. As a reminder of the thesis of this proposed railway project, I quote the following from the Great Lakes Basin Rail Line website: Great Lakes Basin Transportation, Inc. (GLBT) plans to file either a petition for exemption or an application seeking authority from the Surface Transportation Board (Board) to construct and operate an approximately 278-mile rail line. According to GLBT, the proposed rail line would extend generally from La Porte, Indiana through Illinois to Milton, Wisconsin and would connect with existing Class I railroads. GLBT states that the project is intended to relieve Chicago-area shipping congestion by creating a bypass for through traffic not destined for or originating in the Chicago area." Firstly, I would like to point out that this company is wishing to petition for an exemption to transportation safety and environmental laws that already protect life and property from harm and commercial greed. The very fact that this company is looking to circumnavigate those laws by asking for an exemption is one of many ways that their proposal is suspect. To continue, I put forth the following environmental and economic concerns, which you no doubt have already received from countless other concerned citizens from across the affected area.: 1. The possibility of a train running near our town poses immediate land, water, and noise pollution problems. -Commercial freight trains carry a myriad of goods and products across our nation, but many of those products (especially those that are shipped across Northern Illinois) include crude oil, refined ethanol, coal, and other pollutants. -The mere presence of these products comes with the risk of permanent land, air and water pollution in the case of a derailment or other train accident. Fields and farms that have been worked for generations would be ruined beyond reclamation. Homes, properties and livelihoods would be destroyed and property values would plunge. -With the aging U.S. rail infrastructure, such occurrences are not uncommon. Several have occurred within the past year, and all have been nightmares for the rail industry and such organizations as the NTSB, EPA, and STB. I, as a taxpayer who proudly supports these institutions, would hate to see any further risk introduced by the addition of an unnecessary railway. -In addition, the noise of trains running to and fro will disrupt daily activities and the quality of life in our community. Paw Paw, IL is attractive to many homeowners because of its relative peace and quiet, which would as such be destroyed with the presence of this railway. 2. The train, while immediately profitable for the rail industry, would be an economic blight on the communities it would affect, Paw Paw IL being included. -The rail way proposal is entirely unnecessary. Great Lakes Basin, L.L.C. argues in their thesis that the rail line would de-congest rail traffic not bound for Chicago, when there are already multiple rail lines operated by BNSF, UP, and CSXT that crisscross the Northern Illinois area outside of Chicago. There are already multiple alternatives to rail traffic that does not wish to involve itself with the Chicago area. For a full map of these routes for your own consideration, enclosed is a link to a 2012 Illinois Rail Map: http://www.idot.illinois.gov/assets/uploads/files/transportation-system/maps-&-charts/railroad-maps/il%20railroad%20map%202012.pdf -The proposed rail would cut through 278 miles of what is very clearly Midwestern farmland. The Farm Bureau, Farm Advocacy Groups and farmers themselves will stress to you the importance of their land, as a source of food for their communities and the world ,and as a source of income on which they depend. The addition of noisy, dirty freight trains, carrying nearly 100 cars and cutting through their lands, would immediately and permanently disrupt their ability to perform this vital work. The local Paw Paw, IL and national economy would suffer greatly. This is surely of no great concern to the aforementioned Great Lakes Basin, L.L.C., who are pretty convincingly attempting to make a quick buck at the expense of taxpayers. -The Paw Paw IL community relies greatly on its main road infrastructure to carry out daily economic and emergency response activities. This rail way will, according to several map renderings I have seen, cross over our main west-bound road out of town. Paw Paw is connected to the rest of the state via I-39, and the two are joined by this east-west road. This limits, if not entirely hinders, interstate commerce and emergency responders, who also rely on this road to transport patients to the nearest hospital. In total, this would severely and permanently affect our town's quality of life. To sum it up, this proposal is damaging in nearly every conceivable way to voting taxpayers and brings the unnecessary risks of environmental disaster, congestion, property devaluation, and lifestyle damage to thriving Northern Midwest communities, including Paw Paw IL. I strongly encourage you and the other concerned parties of the Surface Transportation Board to stop this proposal in its tracks. No amount of personal economic gain and greed is worth environmental and personal risks to taxpayers. There exist many potential, alternate solutions to the problems that Great Lakes Basin, L.L.C. has brought forward. I would encourage that organization to look more closely at those solutions before proposing something so flippantly irresponsible. Sincerely, Sam Dunklau, on behalf of the Dunklau Family"
Submitted by: Sam Dunklau
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-35952/comment/EI-22185 · back to the docket sheet